earned_value_mgmt__eac_cpi

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only describes the calculation assumption, not side effects, read-only nature, or output format. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise (single sentence). It lacks structure but is front-loaded with the essential purpose. It could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description does not provide enough context for an AI agent to understand the return value, assumptions, or prerequisites. It is incomplete for a financial computation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters 'bac' (Budget at Completion) or 'cpi' (Cost Performance Index). The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool computes 'EAC assuming current cost performance continues', which is a specific verb (EAC) and resource (current cost performance). The prefix '[earned-value-mgmt]' and the contrast with sibling tools like 'eac_atypical' and 'eac_combined' makes the purpose distinct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when 'current cost performance continues', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like eac_atypical or eac_combined. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.